How ammonia could help clean up global shipping...

[Phil Hobbs]

Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 2022-08-31 18:40, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
onsdag den 31. august 2022 kl. 17.32.38 UTC+2 skrev
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest
emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/

The equivalent of an industry EUA:
\"The American Bureau of Shipping, which sets safety standards for

global shipping, recently granted early-stage approval for some
ammonia-powered ships and fueling infrastructure, including a design
from Samsung Heavy Industries, one of the world’s largest shipbuilders.
Such ships could hit the seas within the next few years, as several
companies have promised deliveries in 2024.\"

These are not little fringe techie companies- they\'re kinda
massive players in the industry.

And there\'s no \"could\" to it, it\'s happening now.

A more level-headed description of the challenges being overcome:

https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/how-ammonia-could-decarbonise-shipping/4014674.article

Quick summary of the ammonia production industry which has to be
greened regardless:
https://cen.acs.org/business/petrochemicals/ammonia-fuel-future/99/i8
Envision thousands of deaths in a port city.

Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon of
long-chain gunk.

it is hard to store and transport and once you account for energy
content it is only ~25% less CO2/KJ

burning ammonia seems like a recipe for making lots of NOx


Burning ammonia is how nitric acid is made. A major industrial
product, but not a useful, safe IC engine fuel. That would be madness.

Jeroen Belleman

Gotta find work for all those fertilizer plants that the antihumanists
are trying to prevent from helping feed people.

Phil Hobbs

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 4:40:23 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:25:31 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 8:32:38 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/

Refueling time with hydrogen in intercalated tanks is long, but ammonia is a pumpable
liquid. Easier, I suppose, to pump with pipes than to swap in full tanks with a crane.
Both options require refrigeration at the port.

CO2 recovery at sea might be cost-effective, too; Iceland has a storage scheme with
good prospects, in the right kind of geology.

Wiki says

Ammonia production is energy-intensive, accounting for 1 to 2% of
global energy consumption, 3% of global carbon emissions,[150] and 3
to 5% of natural gas consumption.[151]

That doesn\'t sound efficient to me.

What definition of \'efficient\' are you applying? If ammonia production is energy-intensive,
that\'s because it contains energy that can be released... which, after all, is what makes a \'good fuel\'.
As for carbon emissions, those aren\'t because of the ammonia use in ships, but because of choices about
the process for generating it.

 

[server]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 19:36:49 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 4:40:23 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:25:31 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 8:32:38 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/

Refueling time with hydrogen in intercalated tanks is long, but ammonia is a pumpable
liquid. Easier, I suppose, to pump with pipes than to swap in full tanks with a crane.
Both options require refrigeration at the port.

CO2 recovery at sea might be cost-effective, too; Iceland has a storage scheme with
good prospects, in the right kind of geology.

Wiki says

Ammonia production is energy-intensive, accounting for 1 to 2% of
global energy consumption, 3% of global carbon emissions,[150] and 3
to 5% of natural gas consumption.[151]

That doesn\'t sound efficient to me.

What definition of \'efficient\' are you applying?

Well, we could run a ship from NG, or use the NG to make ammonia to
run the ship, and do the math on that.

If ammonia production is energy-intensive,
that\'s because it contains energy that can be released... which, after all, is what makes a \'good fuel\'.

So we get more energy by burning ammonia than we would have got by
using the input NG? Interesting chemistry there.

As for carbon emissions, those aren\'t because of the ammonia use in ships, but because of choices about
the process for generating it.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:40:23 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:25:31 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 8:32:38 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/

Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon of
long-chain gunk.

Half is more than zero.
Refueling time with hydrogen in intercalated tanks is long, but ammonia is a pumpable
liquid. Easier, I suppose, to pump with pipes than to swap in full tanks with a crane.
Both options require refrigeration at the port.

CO2 recovery at sea might be cost-effective, too; Iceland has a storage scheme with
good prospects, in the right kind of geology.
Wiki says

Ammonia production is energy-intensive, accounting for 1 to 2% of
global energy consumption, 3% of global carbon emissions,[150] and 3
to 5% of natural gas consumption.[151]

That doesn\'t sound efficient to me.

You don\'t have to get the energy to make ammonia by burning fossil carbon. The climate change denial propaganda that John Larkin reads and believes is paid for by the fossil carbon extraction industry, so they don\'t admit this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

relies on mixing hydrogen, which you can get by electrolysis and nitrogen which you get from the air, and compressing the mixture to a couple of hundred atmospheres (which you do with electrically driven pumps) in the presence of a solid state catalyst.

It\'s cheaper to get the electric power required from solar cells and wind turbines than from any other source. Battery or pumped hydro storage would let you run the rather expensive plant more or less continuously, but you can store the ammonia produced indefinitely so you don\'t have to.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 12:43:06 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 19:36:49 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 4:40:23 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:25:31 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 8:32:38 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/

Refueling time with hydrogen in intercalated tanks is long, but ammonia is a pumpable
liquid. Easier, I suppose, to pump with pipes than to swap in full tanks with a crane.
Both options require refrigeration at the port.

CO2 recovery at sea might be cost-effective, too; Iceland has a storage scheme with
good prospects, in the right kind of geology.

Wiki says

Ammonia production is energy-intensive, accounting for 1 to 2% of
global energy consumption, 3% of global carbon emissions,[150] and 3
to 5% of natural gas consumption.[151]

That doesn\'t sound efficient to me.

What definition of \'efficient\' are you applying?

Well, we could run a ship from NG, or use the NG to make ammonia to run the ship, and do the math on that.

You don\'t have to use natural gas to make ammonia, and it\'s now probably not the cheapest way of getting it, though it may take a while before the cheaper all-electric plants get built.

If ammonia production is energy-intensive,
that\'s because it contains energy that can be released... which, after all, is what makes a \'good fuel\'.

So we get more energy by burning ammonia than we would have got by
using the input NG? Interesting chemistry there.

Natural gas isn\'t a necessary input. It\'s just the traditional choice as the hydrogen source and the energy choice, and it isn\'t the cheapest one any more.

> >As for carbon emissions, those aren\'t because of the ammonia use in ships, but because of choices about the process for generating it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:33:18 -0700 (PDT), a a <manta103g@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, 31 August 2022 at 23:25:35 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 8:32:38 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/
Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon of
long-chain gunk.
Half is more than zero.
Refueling time with hydrogen in intercalated tanks is long, but ammonia is a pumpable
liquid. Easier, I suppose, to pump with pipes than to swap in full tanks with a crane.
Both options require refrigeration at the port.

CO2 recovery at sea might be cost-effective, too; Iceland has a storage scheme with
good prospects, in the right kind of geology.
fake
ammonia is highly toxic
and should be banned

Babies make ammonia.

Just the merest trifle. If you\'ve ever sniffed real ammonia,
you\'d know the stuff is very nasty indeed. At least it\'s not
subtle, so it won\'t intoxicate you unnoticed. It kicks, really.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:25:31 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 8:32:38 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/
Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon of
long-chain gunk.
Half is more than zero.
Refueling time with hydrogen in intercalated tanks is long, but ammonia is a pumpable
liquid. Easier, I suppose, to pump with pipes than to swap in full tanks with a crane.
Both options require refrigeration at the port.

CO2 recovery at sea might be cost-effective, too; Iceland has a storage scheme with
good prospects, in the right kind of geology.


Wiki says

Ammonia production is energy-intensive, accounting for 1 to 2% of
global energy consumption, 3% of global carbon emissions,[150] and 3
to 5% of natural gas consumption.[151]

That doesn\'t sound efficient to me.

Ammonia production is endothermic, yes, and we need lots of it,
though not as a fuel.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Robert Latest]

Jeroen Belleman wrote:

Burning ammonia is how nitric acid is made. A major industrial
product, but not a useful, safe IC engine fuel. That would be madness.

Nobody suggested using ammonia as combustion fuel.

 

[Robert Latest]

John Larkin wrote:

Ammonia production is energy-intensive, accounting for 1 to 2% of
global energy consumption, 3% of global carbon emissions,[150] and 3
to 5% of natural gas consumption.[151]

That doesn\'t sound efficient to me.

That\'s because the hydrogen for the Haber-Bosch process comes from natural gas
(methane). Under these circumstances ammonia makes no sense as a hydrogen
carrier -- you might indeed just burn the methane right away. The process
becomes interesting when the hydrogen is created from wather with renewables,
with ammonia being used as a high-density transport / storage medium for
hydrogen.

 

[Robert Latest]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

What definition of \'efficient\' are you applying?

Well, we could run a ship from NG, or use the NG to make ammonia to
run the ship, and do the math on that.

The ammonia idea only makes sense if the hydrogen comes from renewable sources.

So we get more energy by burning ammonia than we would have got by
using the input NG? Interesting chemistry there.

see above.

 

[server]

On 1 Sep 2022 14:36:22 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com> wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
What definition of \'efficient\' are you applying?

Well, we could run a ship from NG, or use the NG to make ammonia to
run the ship, and do the math on that.

The ammonia idea only makes sense if the hydrogen comes from renewable sources.

Cool. Solar panels, electrolysis to make hydrogen, then solar powered
ammonia synthesis. No worries about efficiency since solar power is
free.

So we get more energy by burning ammonia than we would have got by
using the input NG? Interesting chemistry there.

see above.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

torsdag den 1. september 2022 kl. 16.30.14 UTC+2 skrev Robert Latest:

Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Burning ammonia is how nitric acid is made. A major industrial
product, but not a useful, safe IC engine fuel. That would be madness.
Nobody suggested using ammonia as combustion fuel.

but they are ..

 

[server]

On 1 Sep 2022 14:30:05 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Burning ammonia is how nitric acid is made. A major industrial
product, but not a useful, safe IC engine fuel. That would be madness.
Nobody suggested using ammonia as combustion fuel.

How would a ship use ammonia for propulsion?

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:05:07 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On 1 Sep 2022 14:30:05 GMT, Robert Latest <bobl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Burning ammonia is how nitric acid is made. A major industrial
product, but not a useful, safe IC engine fuel. That would be madness.
Nobody suggested using ammonia as combustion fuel.

How would a ship use ammonia for propulsion?

Pistons in cylinders, ammonia/air/catalyst mixture, ignition source, crankshaft...
not lots of RPMs, those cylinders are BIG and there\'s plenty of time for complete
combustion.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 2:01:06 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On 1 Sep 2022 14:36:22 GMT, Robert Latest <bobl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
What definition of \'efficient\' are you applying?

Well, we could run a ship from NG, or use the NG to make ammonia to
run the ship, and do the math on that.

The ammonia idea only makes sense if the hydrogen comes from renewable sources.
Cool. Solar panels, electrolysis to make hydrogen, then solar powered
ammonia synthesis. No worries about efficiency since solar power is
free.

It isn\'t. It is cheaper than any other way of making electricity, and a bunch of Australian venture capitalists are raising money to build huge solar farms on the north coast of Australia to make hydrogen by electrolysis, to be liquified and shipped off in tankers to South Korea and Japan.\'

Somewhat more sensible people are planning on building more solar farms up there and shipping the electricity they produce to Singapore over a rather long high voltage undersea cable. They will need grid scale batteries - probably vanadium flow cells - to keep the current flowing over night and during overcast days.

That means a somewhat oversized solar farm, but they can probably sell the excess current (when they\'ve got it ) to a hydrogen generating farm down the coast.

So we get more energy by burning ammonia than we would have got by
using the input NG? Interesting chemistry there.

see above.

John Larkin can\'t see much. He never seems to have been exposed to thermodynamics.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Mikko OH2HVJ]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com writes:

On 1 Sep 2022 14:30:05 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Burning ammonia is how nitric acid is made. A major industrial
product, but not a useful, safe IC engine fuel. That would be madness.
Nobody suggested using ammonia as combustion fuel.

How would a ship use ammonia for propulsion?

At least Wärtsilä working on ammonia engines. They\'ve already got
diesel, methanol, LNG and dual fuel motors.

--
mikko

 

[server]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 17:12:02 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 9:05:07 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On 1 Sep 2022 14:30:05 GMT, Robert Latest <bobl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Burning ammonia is how nitric acid is made. A major industrial
product, but not a useful, safe IC engine fuel. That would be madness.
Nobody suggested using ammonia as combustion fuel.

How would a ship use ammonia for propulsion?

Pistons in cylinders, ammonia/air/catalyst mixture, ignition source, crankshaft...
not lots of RPMs, those cylinders are BIG and there\'s plenty of time for complete
combustion.

Of course, basically a modified giant direct-drive reversing diesel. I
was responding to the statement

>> >Nobody suggested using ammonia as combustion fuel.

I used to design control systems for big-ship steam turbines. The
first closed-loop controller I ever designed (I was an EE undergrad)
was 32K horsepower. I used the newish uA709 opamps. Steam turbines
were efficient and the fuel was \"dirt\" cheap but the plants were so
complex that it got hard to find crews to keep them going. Big-jug
diesels are much simpler.

 

[server]

On Thu, 01 Sep 2022 09:08:18 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:33:18 -0700 (PDT), a a <manta103g@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, 31 August 2022 at 23:25:35 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 8:32:38 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/
Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon of
long-chain gunk.
Half is more than zero.
Refueling time with hydrogen in intercalated tanks is long, but ammonia is a pumpable
liquid. Easier, I suppose, to pump with pipes than to swap in full tanks with a crane.
Both options require refrigeration at the port.

CO2 recovery at sea might be cost-effective, too; Iceland has a storage scheme with
good prospects, in the right kind of geology.
fake
ammonia is highly toxic
and should be banned

Babies make ammonia.


Just the merest trifle. If you\'ve ever sniffed real ammonia,
you\'d know the stuff is very nasty indeed. At least it\'s not
subtle, so it won\'t intoxicate you unnoticed. It kicks, really.

Jeroen Belleman

Up until sorta recently, I had a blueline copier that used an ammonia
developer. If you unscrewed the cap from a gallon jug of the ammonia
solution, the vapor would sting your fingers.

I still have a drawing table and design with a pencil on D-size paper,
but I photograph the schematics with my phone.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 02 Sep 2022 07:55:48 +0300, Mikko OH2HVJ
<mikko.syrjalahti@nospam.fi> wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com writes:

On 1 Sep 2022 14:30:05 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Burning ammonia is how nitric acid is made. A major industrial
product, but not a useful, safe IC engine fuel. That would be madness.
Nobody suggested using ammonia as combustion fuel.

How would a ship use ammonia for propulsion?

At least Wärtsilä working on ammonia engines. They\'ve already got
diesel, methanol, LNG and dual fuel motors.

I think there was once a piston engine that sprayed powdered coal into
the cylinder.

How about wood chips?

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2022-09-02 19:37, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2022 07:55:48 +0300, Mikko OH2HVJ
mikko.syrjalahti@nospam.fi> wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com writes:

On 1 Sep 2022 14:30:05 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Burning ammonia is how nitric acid is made. A major industrial
product, but not a useful, safe IC engine fuel. That would be madness.
Nobody suggested using ammonia as combustion fuel.

How would a ship use ammonia for propulsion?

At least Wärtsilä working on ammonia engines. They\'ve already got
diesel, methanol, LNG and dual fuel motors.

I think there was once a piston engine that sprayed powdered coal into
the cylinder.

How about wood chips?

What about the ashes?

Jeroen Belleman